Author Archive

Contract holdouts. If there’s one thing that creates a heated debate in the NFL before the season starts, that topic drifts toward the top. One camp says, “You signed a contract, so you should be held to it.” Another says, “If a player can be cut mid-contract, why shouldn’t a player that over-performs be allowed to negotiate a new better contract mid-term?”

That debate aside, all would agree, the current method of players holding out before the season starts is flawed. If anything, there should be a some type of process that’s better than, “Give me a new contract, or I’m not reporting to camp.”

In some fashion, the new CBA addresses the matter…. sort of.

The league got a win in the new CBA as it pertains to holdouts. In an effort to prevent them, under the new CBA if player under contract fails to report to training camp, he is fined $30,000 per day by his club. That’s more than double the fine in the prior CBA which was $14,000 per day.

On top of that, players who were drafted in the first round holdout in their 5th year (option year), they lose a game check for each pre-season game they miss. If “missing pre-season” sounds like small potatoes, think again: salaries in the option year are significantly high.

And, that’s just for players already under contract. There’s a clear system now with the rookies that is designed to prevent holdouts.

But, all of this isn’t going to stop holdouts. Just ask DeSean Jackson as but one player willing to take the fines.

What seems to be missing – something that appears to not have been talked about in the last negotiations – is something MLB has had for years: performance clauses.

In baseball, players can have escalators in their contracts based upon a limited set of stats. Most of the time these center on durability – a pitcher for his number of innings pitched or a position player by plate appearances. The scope is purposely set narrow to prevent players saying that a line-up or other players impact statistical outcome. Durability, the vast majority of the time, can be attributed to the player.

Granted, the NFL is a different animal. But, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be tweaked to allow performance clauses. That, however, is academic. We have 10-years of a new CBA to live through before the subject might surface. In the meantime, there will still be players that holdout each training camp, albeit with lighter wallets than they had in the last CBA.

After 136 days of a lockout, you’d have thought that fans’ interest in the NFL would have dimmed somewhat. After all, it was the longest work stoppage in league history.

But, with only the Hall of Fame Game in Canton, Ohio, having to be canceled, ticket prices on the resale market have not only gone up, they have done so significantly.

According to ticket research company TiqIQ, prices are up 22 percent across the league compared to last year.

The average price on the resale market is $185.21 compared to $152.04 last season. The top 5 by selling price are:

9/8-Packers v Saints: $442.09

1/1-Giants v Cowboys: $408.83

9/25-Bears v Packers: $395.19

10/16-Patriots v Cowboys: $386.17

10/23-Saints v Colts: $371.16

Leading the pack for average resale price is the NY Giants at $302.83 followed by the Saints ($299.33) and Bears ($287.12). Least expensive is the Panthers ($105.77), Browns ($114.83), and Bills ($127.71).

In terms of largest increase in price, the Eagles see a 51.66% increase, followed by the Steelers (50.29%), and Packers (48.62%). Teams where you can get a “bargain” over last season are the Colts (down -6.65% from last season), and Chiefs (-4.37%).

Read more to see a breakdown of resale ticket prices all 32 teams in the NFL

Much was made yesterday that the NFL owners had ratified “a comprehensive agreement” to get the football season underway.

But, what truly happened was that the owners ratified their final proposal to the players – the terms – not an agreement (see the complete details) as the players have yet to vote to finalize the deal and get a CBA in place.

The press release by the league had an incredible amount of information within it. But, upon reading, it is as interesting for what is missing as for what is within it.

The biggest issue outstanding is the matter of settling two key legal cases. They are the anti-trust case that sees Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and others as lead plaintiffs, and the “lockout insurance” case in which a judge ruled that the NFL had negotiated television rights extensions to achieve leverage over the players in the event of a lockout. Those have to be resolved with the final language of the deal agreed to. The board members for the players then have to vote to recommend a settlement to those in class of players in the suit, which they then have to approve. After that, the court would have to approve and ratify the settlement.

The other key matter is reconstituting the NFLPA as a union. The board members of the NFLPA have to recommend that to the rest of the players, and then from a technical perspective, go through the process of changes to its own status with the likes of the IRS, National Labor Relations Board, and address its Constitution and By-Laws.

From there, the player would vote to ratify the deal. Owners believe that the players can do so electronically, but the players want to conduct by paper vote with signatures, just as they did with the vote to decertify to allow proper diligence. That would take longer to conduct and could make the ratification process take longer to complete.

Then, and only then, can the players and owner get past matters such as how grievances are handled, player benefits and the drug policy.

So, to say that the owners have ratified an agreement is a fallacy. What has happened is a savvy power play to get the player to agree to the final proposal they voted on before the players saw it.

Nate Silver, my former colleague at Baseball Prospectus who writes the FiveThirtyEight blog for The New York Times, caused quite a stir yesterday when he reported that the NBA is running a profit, not a loss (see Calling Foul on N.B.A.’s Claims of Financial Distress). It’s an interesting look at the NBA, using aggregate numbers from the Forbes and Financial World valuation numbers from 1998-2010.

As you’re reading this on Forbes, you’ll know that I have used the numbers extensively prior… as a barometer. Leagues often talk down the numbers (see the NBA’s response the Silver piece), but for those who don’t have hard numbers, they are the best journalists can work from, and for the intent of showing trends, can be used to paint a sound picture. For the discussion around profits, Forbes’ use of Operating Income, which is earnings before the deduction of interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, is your launching point in making a case.

Net Income–which is after the deduction of all costs–would give a more definitive picture.

Sources close to the NBA labor negotiations have provided Net Income numbers for the league each year over the last five years, plus projected losses for the 2010-11 season. Given that the NBA is saying that they are running at a net loss, as opposed to the NFL, which is saying they are seeing profits declining, the NBA is compelled to open their books as part of labor law, and have done so. The following numbers are audited figures. If the projected figures are correct, the NBA will have lost $1.845 billion over the last 6 years, not turned a profit, as reported by Silver.

The following shows the losses, as well as the number of teams that reportedly have run at a loss the last 5 years, plus projected losses for the 2010-11 season: continue »

Owning a Major League Baseball club has a gratification and ego element that, for some, far surpasses a corporate takeover or merger. To buy a team means entering a rare fraternity where you become part of baseball’s incredible lineage. For some, there may be a passion for the sport that has been with them since childhood — a dream of owning something coveted.

But, ballclubs are also unlike other businesses in other ways. They are community assets. The team name is synonymous with the city that hosts it. There is, quite simply, an unquantifiable value to them. They are, for better or worse, a representation of the city itself. From ESPN, to the sports sections of local and national papers, the club is tied to the host city.

So, with that, their owners and executives are held to a higher standard. They too, become a representative of the community, not too far removed from elected officials.

For the Houston Astros, the tenure of Drayton McLane is about to end. After 18 years, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Houston Astros Baseball Club is selling the club’s majority interest. McLane’s philosophy for the Astros has been, “We have two missions: to be a champion, and to make a positive difference in the community!”

McLane has been shopping the Astros for some time. Now, he appears to have the deal all but wrapped up with Houston businessman Jim Crane, entering into an exclusive agreement to purchase the club for a reported $680 million, which includes the lease on Minute Maid Park, and a stake in a newly created Comcast SportsNet Houston, a regional sports network partnership with the NBA Houston Rockets which will launch in 2012. The sale price would rank behind only the $845 million sale of the Chicago Cubs, which also included Wrigley Field and a 25 percent stake in Comcast SportsNet Chicago. The auction sale of the Texas Rangers in August of last year for $593 million likely boosted the Astros value, as well.

Crane, who earned a degree in industrial safety from Central Missouri State University in 1976, and was a pitcher for the Mules during that time, has long sought ownership in an MLB franchise. He was in line to purchase the Astros in 2008, was involved in bidding for the Cubs as late as 2009, and married up with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban last year in a public auction to purchase the Texas Rangers, where they lost to a group assembled by Nolan Ryan and former owner Chuck Greenberg.

Persistence appears to have paid off. But, there are little-reported aspects of Crane’s business history that will place him under the microscope of MLB’s owners, and the public at large. These issues, none small in nature, bring a man who has been clouded in controversy for years to MLB’s lodge.

Crane Backs Out of 2008 Astros Deal at the 11th Hour

As mentioned, McLane has been shopping the Astros for some time. Indeed, in 2008, he thought he found a buyer in none other than Jim Crane. The exclusive sales agreement was so close to being consummated that McLane and the Astros PR staff were reportedly on the verge of sending out a press release announcing the sale.

Crane backed out of the deal, thus putting McLane in a bit of an embarrassing situation. It has overshadowed Crane’s attempts to purchase clubs ever since. Accordingly, McLane didn’t exactly go to bat for Crane during the Cubs and Rangers sales. Some reports have said that McLane actually talked down Crane, although he has denied that.

MLB’s owner like certainty. Having an owner back out at the last minute cast doubt on Crane. Whether that plays itself out now when it comes time for MLB’s owners to approve the sale, will remain to be seen.

Crane Continues to Negotiate with Tom Hicks after Reaching Exclusive Agreement with Greenberg and Ryan

Through the entire Texas Rangers auction process, Crane was the under-current story. It was reported that he was not in favor with the owners, the fallout from the 11th hour back-out of the Astros sale in 2008. And, even after former owner Tom Hicks reached an exclusive agreement with the Nolan Ryan and Chuck Greenberg group, Hicks kept negotiating with Crane to try and get a higher sale price, something that so infuriated MLB that they issued a statement in April of 2010 reading, “As part of the Texas Rangers sale process, Tom Hicks selected the Chuck Greenberg/Nolan Ryan group as the chosen bidder on December 15, 2009 and entered into an exclusive agreement with that group. …. Any deviation from or interference with the agreed upon sale process by Mr. Hicks or any other party, or any actions in violation of MLB rules or directives will be dealt with appropriately by the Commissioner.”

Crane’s Eagle Global Logistics and Allegations Of Discrimination Against Blacks, Hispanics and Women of Child-Bearing Age

In 1997, complaints were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Crane’s Eagle USA Airfreight and its position on hiring blacks and women of child-bearing age. The EEOC issued a scathing 104 page report (most EEOC reports are said to run 3-5 pages), found that to be true, and added that Crane’s company conducted a practice of paying “female and minority employees less than white men who do similar work; did not investigate employee complaints of sexual harassment; and destroyed evidence that the company was instructed to retain as part of the two-year EEOC investigation,” according to a Houston Chronicle article from 2000.

In the Chronicle report:

Crane told his subordinates not to hire blacks because “once you hire blacks, you can never fire them.” On other occasions, Crane explained the reason he wanted to keep blacks out of the company was that his top managers are bigoted and they would mistreat the minorities, “giving them no choice but to sue Eagle.”

Witnesses also said Crane did not permit the company to advertise job openings because he did not want to create a paper trail of unhired qualified minorities.

To discourage blacks and women from applying, Eagle managers refused to let female and minority applicants enter its secured facilities to fill out job applications. Eagle disagreed with that assessment.

Crane also warned managers not to hire women of child-bearing age because their productivity would be low. And top company officers told employees that women aren’t suitable for management positions because male managers won’t work with a woman.

The company’s General Counsel, Judith Robertson, testified in 1997 corroborating the claims made. In 1998, Eagle sued Robertson, alleging that she violated attorney-client privilege in her “whistle-blowing” testimony (prior to the existence of legislation protecting “whistle-blowers”). She ultimately agreed to settle with Eagle out of court.

Eagle then sued to stop the EEOC investigation based on claims that the EEOC was ‘biased against the company’ and that they were using “privileged information” from their General Counsel (Judith Robertson). The EEOC denied that information from the General Counsel affected the investigation and explained that they had received testimony from dozens of employees. Ultimately, however, the original case was sealed until May 2000, when it was closed and a new case was opened for civil proceedings after the EEOC joined into a discrimination case as a plaintiff. (Eagle USA Airfreight, et al v. EEOC, “Civil Docket,” Case #4:98-cv-00316, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas; Eagle USA Airfreight, et al v. EEOC, “Civil Docket,” Case #4:2000-cv-01535, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas; Dube v. EGL, “Memorandum & Order,” Case #2:2000-cv-02461, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 5, 2000).

Ultimately, a $9 million settlement was reached, with $8.5 million going to back pay and damages that were allocated to the class members, which consist of African-Americans, Hispanics, and female employees employed by Eagle at any time between December 1, 1995 and December 30, 2000, and former applicants who sought employment at Eagle during the period December 1, 1995 to December 31, 2000. In addition, Eagle paid $500,000 to establish a Leadership Development Program, a program intended by Eagle and EEOC to benefit minorities and women by preparing them for leadership roles in employment at Eagle.

If you go to a sporting event, somewhere between the time when you get situated and when start heading back for home, you look around at the crowd and take it in. Is the crowd electrified for the home team? Has the town turned out in support? How’s the attendance?

For clubs across the major sports leagues in North America, attendance is one of – if not the – key revenue streams.

But, it’s more.

Have a bunch of sellouts, and it drives sponsorships. Come up short in the NFL, and you have television blackouts. The number reported in Major League Baseball determines factors as it pertains to revenue-sharing.

In other words, attendance is a big deal.

But, here’s the thing: since attendance has become such a key component for sports leagues, the actual idea that it shows how many people are actually at a game is a fantasy. Here’s some ins and outs of the attendance game based on research by the BizofBaseball.com for Forbes SportsMoney.

Paid Attendance is not “attendance”

If you followed the business of sports, you’ll know that about 20 years ago, the move to count tickets sold, as opposed to turnstile clicks, became what is reported in the boxscores. The reason – wholly done for accounting purposes for the clubs – showed what matters to owners most: money.

In the age of legitimate ticket resale, more emphasis on corporate sales, blocks of premium seating, etc. how many people actually come to the game is not nearly as important as whether there are tickets sold. Sure it matters who goes, but ticket sales, especially in advance, gives cost certainty.

This issue, one might contend, creates revisionist history. Ask yourself: in 20 years when a budding student is taking sports business classes and is asked to say whether the sport was popular or not, don’t you think pointing to published attendance figures will be used to talk of its popularity? In that sense, we can only say how willing consumers, which includes large and small businesses, were willing to purchase tickets, not how many actually attended the live sporting event.

Fudging the numbers

The NFL’s blackout policy has helped drive artificial attendance across the league. Faced with a “sell it out, or it’s blacked out” mandate, those clubs that are near the edge of not being sold out have seen actions that artificially reach sellout numbers.

The problem is, the NFL will tout how well received the game of football is at stadiums around the country. Those sellout figures drive sponsorship deals.

And, it’s not just the NFL.

The Florida Marlins got into the artificial inflation act by selling tickets to a game already played. The club sold over 3,500 tickets to Roy Halladay’s perfect game when the Phillies visited Florida in June of last season. As noted, because money collected — even for a game already played — from this venture counts toward ticket sales revenue, it is subject to Major League Baseball’s revenue sharing rules, which doesn’t mean a whole lot if you’re the Marlins. After all, they’ve been one of MLB’s largest benefactors of revenue-sharing, and one of the most profitable.

When is a sellout not a sellout

If you polled 100 fans and asked them what a sellout of a sporting event meant to them, chances are all would say, “Every seat is the house was sold.”

Well…

In terms of Major League Baseball, sellout figures are often well below seating capacity.

Capacity for Progressive Field is 43,545. The announced attendance was 40,631, or 2,914 short of capacity. Sellout?

In speaking with the Indians, they explained part of the difference by saying their sellout threshold varies, but 41,721 is a good barometer, getting us to 1.090 shy of a sellout, but not to capacity.

Why the difference?

According to the Indians, that threshold was broken with comps related to several factors including rainout exchanges, Club Seat benefit for season ticket holders, group leader tickets, fan appreciation coupons from last Sept, etc.

But, that still doesn’t explain how all the variation. As an MLB source said, “We need to look into this.”

As Major League Baseball was quick to point out, if the Indians declare the game a sellout, it means no more tickets can be sold. If you want to say it’s a sellout when it isn’t a sellout, you do so to the detriment of the bottom line.

Still, one could say that after having such a difficult time getting attendance up to the level of what is now baseball’s most winning team, being able to say you sold a game out gets you good PR mileage.

And, each club controls how the threshold is set. For the Angels, it’s 43,500 (ballpark capacity is 45,281). And for the Rays, it’s exactly the seating capacity of Tropicana Field (36,973).

On the Rays… One might consider that if you’re looking for a new ballpark, then showing low sellout numbers actually helps you make your case that you need a new facility.

In fairness to MLB, this isn’t just something they do. You have no idea what real attendance is in other sports where there’s no checks and balances. Asked about the large variations on how clubs determine the sellout figure, Major League Baseball referred to ballpark structure as the reason.

“There are different criteria for different ballparks,” said Patrick Courtney, MLB’s Sr. VP of Media Relations.” Ballparks with a high volume of suites or with larger bleacher, general admission, and/or standing room areas would most likely have the largest variations on a game by game basis in capacity.”

How do you fill a ballpark past 100%?

The Phillies have sold out every home game this season – 19 and counting, thus far. Based on our “when is a sellout not a sellout” if you asked whether the Phillies have been below capacity, the answer is, no. In fact, it’s much more than that.

The Phillies have not only sold out every game, they’ve sold to over 100% of seating capacity? How is this possible?

Standing-room only tickets count toward paid attendance, and with it, the Phillies have sold a bunch, as well as the Red Sox, and the Cubs.

On the Cubs, while they do not officially report whether games have been sold out, they inform The Biz of Baseball and Forbes that unofficially they typically hit standing-room-only stage with a paid crowd in excess of 39,000 or so. Based upon those figures, the Cubs would have 3 games thus far this season above that threshold.

Is it “cooking the books”, or “creative marketing”?

We’ve mentioned how the NFL can creatively benefit from the blackout policy, but there are other methods, as well.

Leagues do all kinds of promotions to get you to go to their games. For baseball, with its 81 home games, the ability to draw fans is paramount.

Any ticket sold, no matter the price, is considered paid attendance. Unlike the NFL, NHL, and NBA, where comps are counted against total attendance, Major League Baseball does not count them.

Still, according to sources, there are tricks to get attendance a bounce, or reach a sellout threshold. As one source mentioned, “In baseball, there are a number of ways to cook the books.” That seems a bit disingenuous. But, there are plenty of creative ways that are used to get numbers up while those getting the tickets aren’t paying full price. When it comes to sellouts, free tickets can be good tickets.

Here’s 13 ways ticket sellers and clubs get creative to push up numbers:

Sell standing-room only tickets first at a reduced rate to reach a sellout threshold before selling seats in the bowl.

On season tickets, deeply discount tickets, offer “Buy 2 get 2 deals” or offer pay-as-you-go season tickets. Tickets are tickets. Getting you to close the deal is imperative.

For group tickets, offer 50 to 70 percent off weekday early season.

Sponsors get tickets. Each team has 50 to 100 sponsors times 4 to 8 tickets each is 200 to 800 potentially paid season ticket buyers.

On those sellouts, employees get comps. The front offices have 75 to 150 full-time employees plus innumerable number of part-time staff that could potentially “comp out” 300 to 2000 seats a night

Player coaches and retired player comps.

Visiting team comps – 4 times 35 players per game whether used or unused.

Umpire comps – 4 Umps equals 16 tickets per game per Umps contract

Commissioner’s Initiative – requires each team to donate 50 or 100k tickets per year to lower income charities. While this doesn’t impact paid attendance, it can push the needle up for sellouts.

Team charities – The league sends out thousands of tickets to games to local charities via team, seats sold to charity at pennies so they are sold then written off by team.

Internet – Similar to groups like Travel Zoo, Groupon, etc. Offer deep discounting on 3rd party website to push inventory

Military Night – Many are offering free tickets, which is a great gesture as it doesn’t count as paid attendance. But, not all. For example, the Orioles just announced a $3 discount deal off of all tickets for all military (active, retired and reserve) and their families, which bumps up paid attendance.

Is it Right?

If you’re asking whether this is all right or wrong, the answer is, it depends on the point of view. Some are shady, while the ticket seller for a club says, “we’re creative to bring fans in.” Fair enough.

But, when you read the boxscore or hear that a game is sold out, think again. Remember it’s all about the money these days, and what the public sees as attendance figure and the actual number of butts in the seats are assuredly two different things. Don’t ever confuse the two.

Over the past four years, the NFL has focused on an 18 percent rollback of wages, a rookie wage scale, and an 18 game scheduled, while the NFLPA requested detailed financial information numerous times from the league, according to a document obtained by the Business of Sports Network/Forbes SportsMoney.

The five page document, distributed to all players in the league, shows the chronology of labor events through the eyes of the former union for the players.

It starts with an initial note from 2007 highlighting that “the NFL hires attorney Bob Batterman, who orchestrated 2004-2005 NHL lockout,” and then picks up more detail beginning in 2009. On May 18, 2009, the document notes that, “Prior to first formal bargaining session, NFLPA requests audited financial statements and other financial information from the clubs and the League.” That theme would hold throughout the timeline.

On July 14, 2009, the document notes, “Bargaining session in which NFL explains that it terminated CBA 2 years early due to ‘inadequate rate of return’ for owners; NFLPA repeats request for club financial information.” Requests for financial data is then asked for again on August 6, Sept. 9, Oct. 19, Dec. 9 and 18 of 2009, Jan 8 and 18 of 2010 before the NFL provides what the NFLPA describes as, “4 pages of League-wide cost information for 2007 and 2008 to “justify” $1 billion rollback from players; NFL claims that, under the 2006 CBA, players receive 70% of incremental revenue (“70/30 split”).” continue »

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed that ran last week, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell painted a “doomsday” scenario for football fans of what the league would look like without a collectively bargained compromise that would end the lockout. The article, which ran just after Judge Susan Nelson ordered that the lockout by the owners to be lifted, said features such as the draft and minimum salary would disappear, as well as unrestricted free agency would occur, thus throwing a wrench into the parity of the league and stymieing the NFL’s growth.

Today in an interview with me on Bizball Radio (listen to the interview here on The Biz of Football), NFLPA spokesman George Atallah disputed that. When asked if the players intended to “kill the golden goose” as Goodell claimed would happen if the players were to ultimately win the day in court, Atallah said, “If you believe his op-ed, we are [intending to kill the golden goose]. If you look at the negotiations that took place leading up to decertification, everything suggests otherwise. During the previous collective bargaining process that ended on the 11th of March, players had offered multiple times to continue playing under the previous deal, which included significant restrictions on free agency, included a draft and other things that he mentioned in his op-ed,” adding that he didn’t wish to take shots at Goodell and that he respected the position in his position, but that the comments made in the WSJ, were “unsubstantiated.” continue »

When it comes to what is transpiring in the labor battle between the NFL and NFLPA, it’s heady stuff for fans (and yes, the media) to comprehend. The technical maneuvering surrounds labor law – the ground rules that business and unions engage in – and it’s not for the weak to comprehend.

While the NFL and NFLPA have agreed to extend talks for a second time (the CBA is now set to expire on Friday, March 11 at midnight), there are still chances that a deal may not be reached. If so, a series of legal moves will take place.

With so many questions and information being published in articles and in social network platforms such as Twitter, it’s no wonder that, given the complexities, the exact sequence of events has been portrayed incorrectly on occasion.

Bill Gould is the former chair
of the NLRB

In an attempt to get to the bottom of some of these topics, we approached Bill Gould. Gould is the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and is currently Charles A. Beasley Professor of Law, Emeritus at Stanford University. He has been a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators since 1970 and has arbitrated and mediated more than 200 labor disputes, including the 1992 and 1993 salary disputes between the Major League Baseball Players Association and the Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee. He currently serves as independent monitor for FirstGroup America, addressing freedom of association complaints. As Gould notes, in terms of labor law, there are many moving parts surrounding the NFL at the moment.

“The current situation between the NFL and NFLPA is very exciting,” said Gould. “It’s a veritable smorgasbord for labor law.” Here’s his clarifications around the labor issues confronting the NFL and NFLPA.

The current collective bargaining agreement in the NFL is set to expire at midnight tonight.

Or is it?

The owners have formally offered the players an attachment to the CBA that would allow for negotiations to continue, prevent the need for the NFLPA to dissolve themselves to block a lockout, and extend the negotiations that are still ongoing. In exchange, the NFLPA is looking for concessions from the owners. At this time, it is unknown what the concessions being sought by the players are.

The move by the NFL is a sign that they are looking to lock down the NFLPA in negotiations and see about getting a deal down without the legal challenges to any move by which the NFLPA would “disclaim interest” in the players, thus dissolving into ostensibly a trade association. The legal move would allow players to sue the NFL if they locked out the players under anti-trust law.

If the attachment to the CBA is not agreed upon to allow an extension of the CBA for the purposes of negotiating a new deal, the NFLPA can pull the trigger on “disclaiming” as late as just before midnight ET when the current CBA is set to expire.

If the attachment is approved, free agency in the NFL would not commence. That activity does not occur until a new CBA is reached between the sides.